Interesting. The 35-105/3.5-4.5 used to be my standard tripod lens for
landscape work until I got the 35-80/2.8. I used the 35-80/2.8 about
90% of the time on my recent trip. I'm thinking of going back to the
35-105 for some things that I find lacking in the 35-80: the limitation
on "reach" at 80mm and the lack of a DOF scale.
As it turns out the 35-80 is really superb when working on handheld
stuff because of its brightness and on those occasions where I might
want shallow DOF. But I have found myself using f16 a lot and fudging
the focus to the 10m setting to maximize DOF (a guess really ... I carry
a printed DOF table, but only use it at 80m and then ultimately just use
tripod, f16, and prayer).
The 35-80 is such a pleasure to use because it is sufficiently bright
even with a polarizer, but it's nice to have other choices too.
Joel W.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Walt Wayman
> Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 12:15 PM
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [OM] Re: More on 35~105 variable aperture...
>
> In a genuinely unscientific and amateurish experiment, I just
> put my 35-105 on an OM-4 and stepped outside. With the
> aperture set to f/11 and the lens pointed at a uniformly
> sunlit wall, zooming from 35mm to 105mm resulted in a two
> segment change in the LED meter reading.
>
> Looks like it's not a constant aperture lens. I never really
> cared. Even though I've got the 35-80/2.8 Zuiko and a
> 28-105/2.8 Tamron, I often still use the 35-105. It's a
> really nice lens, whatever the aperture may actually be at 67mm.
>
> Walt
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|